NHL · Postseason
Bruins' postseason: what worked, what didn't, and what comes next
Boston's playoff run closes another chapter for the Bruins. A postmortem of the special teams, the goaltending split, and the offseason questions the front office now has to answer before the 2026–27 campaign.
The Bruins' postseason ends with the kind of mixed report card that has, in recent years, become familiar. Boston's regular-season identity — a defensively responsible, structurally sound team that wins close games on goaltending and special teams — translated, partially, into the playoffs. In other respects, the postseason exposed gaps that have been below the surface all year.
What worked
The first thing that worked was the team's structural defense. Five-on-five expected-goals numbers held up throughout the playoff run, and the high-leverage minutes against the opposing top line were, on most nights, an even or a winning matchup. That is the floor a deep playoff run starts from, and Boston had it.
The penalty kill was a second highlight. Through the run, the Bruins' shorthanded units posted some of the best efficiency numbers in the playoff field. Aggressive on the puck, willing to challenge entries at the blue line, and reliable behind a clean breakout pattern, the kill kept Boston in games it had no business being in.
What didn't
The power play was a different story. A unit that had performed reasonably during the regular season cooled significantly in the postseason, and across the run the Bruins struggled to convert sustained zone time into goals. Special-teams arithmetic in the playoffs is unforgiving: a kill that runs at a strong rate cancels out a power play that runs at a weak rate, leaving a team functionally trying to win every game at five-on-five. That is hard to do across a long series.
Five-on-five offense was the other concern. Through the run, the team generated chances at a respectable rate but converted at a below-average percentage, and a handful of close games turned on a single missed look from a top-six forward. That is the kind of variance that smooths out across a regular season and bites in a playoff series.
The goaltending split
Boston's goaltending was, on balance, good. It was also, on balance, not the team's best version of itself in every series. The split between starts that produced .920+ save-percentage performances and the handful of starts that did not is the most diagnosable single variable in the team's playoff result. The 2026–27 question for the front office is whether that split is fundamentally the result of usage, of system fit, or of tandem composition — and the answer has financial implications for next year's roster.
The offseason questions
Three questions sit on the front office's desk:
- The top six. The team needs a top-six scorer who can reliably finish above expected — the kind of forward whose shot quality multiplies the chances the structural offense produces.
- The defensive pairings. Boston's blue line has been one of the league's best regular-season units; in the playoffs, the third pairing's matchup-protection becomes a different test, and the offseason has to address it directly.
- The special teams. The kill is a real strength; the power play has to be rebuilt structurally, not just personnel-wise.
The simple read
This is a Boston team that is good enough to be a problem in any postseason and not yet good enough to win every series it enters. Closing that gap is, as it has been for several years, an offseason project. The next two months will be the league's busiest stretch for the front office.
Related coverage from Local Newswire: Celtics' Eastern Conference outlook · WooSox open 75-game home slate at Polar Park.